You could both, I don't know, ACTUALLY FIND OUT the answer and present it.
I did, the answer is that it is dependent on the implementation, not the machine architecture. Or are you going to tell me that those are the size of those primitive types on 32bit and 64bit architecture? Because they aren't, they are just the values defined by the implementation you used.
The truth is somewhere in between.
No, the truth is exactly as I said, that - as your post demonstrates - primitives are not doubled in size on 64bit architecture, and the reason why is because the decision is on the size of primitives is not governed by the underlying architecture. If you look at the C standard for example you will find those values are not defined by the standard, the C99 standard only defines a minimum precision, the actual size is up to the implementation - which again is nothing to do with the underlying architecture.
Did ints become twice as big? No. Could they? Of course. Why? Because it is defined by the implementation, not the machine architecture, it's all right there in the specification.
then you don't know what copyleft is, which would explain why you incorrectly believe the BSD license is a copyleft license when everybody else knows it isn't.
Toshiba Satellite, can't give you the model ATM as its 4 AM and I'm not gonna go down to the shop, hell i wouldn't be up if it wasn't for the damned headache, the eMachine "Worst Buy Special" but again I can't bring the number up off my head as those emachine "names" are just a bunch of numbers with a letter but its the one with a AMD Liano dual core, the Toshiba has the AMD Bobcat chip in it but I've seen the same stuff with a couple of the i3s.
No i mean what's the specific problem?
And how is that the reverse of squat?
Backward compatibility is the reverse of forward compatibility.
yeah my ass, you can't turn the OS from a cold boot to a hybrid caching boot without serious tweakage
Why would you have to change the driver model for that?
and whereas before I was able to even use XP drivers on Win 7 on occasion as long as both the driver and the OS were the same bit now its frankly a coin flip as to whether its gonna be stable or not.
XP and 7 used a totally different driver model.
First comes the "senior moments" which is where the OS hangs for a few seconds randomly, you could be doing something heavy, you could be just looking at the start screen, don't seem to matter as it seems to happen for no particular reason.
Yeah it happens for 'no particular reason', you really don't understand computers do you.
I know you are gonna try to blame hardware but nope, did full burn ins and diagnostics on every bit of the hardware and when I bypassed the OEM drivers and went straight to those that made the chips?
So you're complaint is that the OEM wrote poor drivers.
Its even worse using a Win 7 driver on 8, thanks to that hybrid boot some shit wakes up some of the time, some doesn't wake up at all, and others become flaky after a couple weeks of hybrid boot.
For example? I'm not particularly interested in using 8 drivers on 7, since that's the reverse of what you suggested here.
Trust me dude, i do this shit 6 days a week,
Cool, then you have no shortage of specific examples, but assuming that is the case, just turn of Hybridboot in System Settings, I would think if you're doing this 6 days a week you would have discovered that by now.
Well off you go then, go do something about it, but you won't will you? You know and accept that what you're suggesting is ridiculous, unworkable and unwanted, which is why you'll never do anything about it anyway.
Nope again. You seem to be under the illusion that software that is not GPL today wouldn't exist if the developers were forced to comply with GPL standards.
That's not an illusion at all, and stating it as though it is fact just shows how disingenuous you are intent on being to try to argue your point. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your argument, however if the GPL were of measurable benefit to users and viable for software developers then they would move to it without being forced, but they don't, in fact as TFA points out even much of the free software community doesn't want the GPL. You're still trying to force something people currently choose to avoid.
Maybe some wouldn't, but most software companies would adapt rather than close doors, as they would have only these two options, rest assured, and the users would gain a lot from the exchange.
Nah, I want them to choose whatever they want without having to accept arbitrary restrictions from the developer.
Then you limit freedom of choice to software that fits the business model of the GPL...why are you having such a problem comprehending that?
The only one whose choice is hindered by GPL is the developer, never the user, but apparently you are too dense to understand that even after it being explained time and again to you.
No I am well aware the GPL only hinders the choice of the developer, I've never disputed that, what you can't seem to understand is that limiting the choice of the developer ultimately limits what they produce and thus the available choice to the user.
And therefore there are laws making mandatory for the seller to include all the information necessary to guarantee to the buyer that it is not spoiled.
No they don't, this would require information on every ingredient and its amount, something that most definitely is not provided.
Defending GPL is not trying to make users choose a given program, but making sure that regardless of what program a user chooses, the developer won't be able to restrict the user right to use it as he wishes and know what it is doing.
And they can, if they choose GPL software, but you want to eliminate that freedom and restrict them to software that fits the business model of the GPL.
And closed source programs can contain anything inside and be unfit for consumption.
Can, but spoiled food is by definition unfit for consumption.
This is just a fallacy. You are not giving users any more choice by giving them restrictions. It is an oxymoron.
No, it is proof that the system you want is not what users want so you resort to suggesting we force them down that path, making GPL software the only choice for users.
I can't sell spoiled food even though people can choose not to buy it. I can't even give it away.
Failed analogy, spoiled food is by definition not fit for consumption.
Making developers show exactly what their piece of software does within the user machine, by releasing the source, is just common sense.
No, developers can do that, and if it's such a good thing then users will choose it, but because they aren't choosing it you want to force users to choose that option.
If you think it's irrelevant then don't bother discussing it. The fact is increasing the freedom of the developer can decrease the freedom of the user if the developer chooses to exercise that freedom, increasing the freedom of the user decreases the freedom of the developer. Ultimately the user can choose whether the product or service of the developer suits them and the developer can choose what freedoms to grant the user. Neither party is or should be forced into doing anything.
And it's often stated on there that Microsoft and Apple 'stole' the idea of the GUI and mouse from Xerox, apparently if you're a corporation you can 'steal' ideas.
By allowing a restrictive license to exist you always give options to developer at the cost of taking choices from the user, even if some choices as "not using the software" still remain.
Yes, because the developer is the one providing the product or service, that product or service will not necessarily fit the needs of the user and does not need to.
No it isn't, copyleft specifies that derived works may be produced so long as they are released under a compatible copyleft scheme, BSD does not require this.
Slashdot Mirror
You could both, I don't know, ACTUALLY FIND OUT the answer and present it.
I did, the answer is that it is dependent on the implementation, not the machine architecture. Or are you going to tell me that those are the size of those primitive types on 32bit and 64bit architecture? Because they aren't, they are just the values defined by the implementation you used.
The truth is somewhere in between.
No, the truth is exactly as I said, that - as your post demonstrates - primitives are not doubled in size on 64bit architecture, and the reason why is because the decision is on the size of primitives is not governed by the underlying architecture.
If you look at the C standard for example you will find those values are not defined by the standard, the C99 standard only defines a minimum precision, the actual size is up to the implementation - which again is nothing to do with the underlying architecture.
Did ints become twice as big? No. Could they? Of course. Why? Because it is defined by the implementation, not the machine architecture, it's all right there in the specification.
I know
If you know then why did you say ints become twice as big when they don't?
I was giving an example from the real world on that platform that people of Slashdot are usually interested about, Linux.
That example doesn't in any way illustrate that primitive types would be twice as big, pointers yes, but not primitive types.
The fact that they are, maybe? ints become twice as big
No they don't, the size of an int is entirely compiler dependent.
Nah - your primitives are doubled in size, which realistically represents something closer to a 25-33% size increase on average.
What makes you think your 'primitives' are doubled in size?
They are "worthless" on non-Windows platforms as they are non-existent.
Yeah i totally don't run office on my mac...oh wait...
then you don't know what copyleft is, which would explain why you incorrectly believe the BSD license is a copyleft license when everybody else knows it isn't.
The benefits of that are clear but unattainable without an effective business model.
Also, Apple usually overstates their "contributions", which are often just "usage".
So you're saying they don't commit to BSD projects?
Nah, it is 'the truth', you'll never do anything :P
That's not a definition of copyleft, try again.
Toshiba Satellite, can't give you the model ATM as its 4 AM and I'm not gonna go down to the shop, hell i wouldn't be up if it wasn't for the damned headache, the eMachine "Worst Buy Special" but again I can't bring the number up off my head as those emachine "names" are just a bunch of numbers with a letter but its the one with a AMD Liano dual core, the Toshiba has the AMD Bobcat chip in it but I've seen the same stuff with a couple of the i3s.
No i mean what's the specific problem?
And how is that the reverse of squat?
Backward compatibility is the reverse of forward compatibility.
yeah my ass, you can't turn the OS from a cold boot to a hybrid caching boot without serious tweakage
Why would you have to change the driver model for that?
and whereas before I was able to even use XP drivers on Win 7 on occasion as long as both the driver and the OS were the same bit now its frankly a coin flip as to whether its gonna be stable or not.
XP and 7 used a totally different driver model.
First comes the "senior moments" which is where the OS hangs for a few seconds randomly, you could be doing something heavy, you could be just looking at the start screen, don't seem to matter as it seems to happen for no particular reason.
Yeah it happens for 'no particular reason', you really don't understand computers do you.
I know you are gonna try to blame hardware but nope, did full burn ins and diagnostics on every bit of the hardware and when I bypassed the OEM drivers and went straight to those that made the chips?
So you're complaint is that the OEM wrote poor drivers.
Its even worse using a Win 7 driver on 8, thanks to that hybrid boot some shit wakes up some of the time, some doesn't wake up at all, and others become flaky after a couple weeks of hybrid boot.
For example? I'm not particularly interested in using 8 drivers on 7, since that's the reverse of what you suggested here.
Trust me dude, i do this shit 6 days a week,
Cool, then you have no shortage of specific examples, but assuming that is the case, just turn of Hybridboot in System Settings, I would think if you're doing this 6 days a week you would have discovered that by now.
But it's the truth isn't it, you're not actually going to do anything towards trying to implement this fantasy of yours are you?
Well off you go then, go do something about it, but you won't will you? You know and accept that what you're suggesting is ridiculous, unworkable and unwanted, which is why you'll never do anything about it anyway.
Meanwhile I suppose you'll lead some worldwide mandate and enforcement that prevents anyone from distributing closed source software...you're a joke.
Nope again. You seem to be under the illusion that software that is not GPL today wouldn't exist if the developers were forced to comply with GPL standards.
That's not an illusion at all, and stating it as though it is fact just shows how disingenuous you are intent on being to try to argue your point. There is no evidence whatsoever to support your argument, however if the GPL were of measurable benefit to users and viable for software developers then they would move to it without being forced, but they don't, in fact as TFA points out even much of the free software community doesn't want the GPL. You're still trying to force something people currently choose to avoid.
Maybe some wouldn't, but most software companies would adapt rather than close doors, as they would have only these two options, rest assured, and the users would gain a lot from the exchange.
And any that do would probably just move to SaaS.
Nah, I want them to choose whatever they want without having to accept arbitrary restrictions from the developer.
Then you limit freedom of choice to software that fits the business model of the GPL...why are you having such a problem comprehending that?
The only one whose choice is hindered by GPL is the developer, never the user, but apparently you are too dense to understand that even after it being explained time and again to you.
No I am well aware the GPL only hinders the choice of the developer, I've never disputed that, what you can't seem to understand is that limiting the choice of the developer ultimately limits what they produce and thus the available choice to the user.
And therefore there are laws making mandatory for the seller to include all the information necessary to guarantee to the buyer that it is not spoiled.
No they don't, this would require information on every ingredient and its amount, something that most definitely is not provided.
Defending GPL is not trying to make users choose a given program, but making sure that regardless of what program a user chooses, the developer won't be able to restrict the user right to use it as he wishes and know what it is doing.
And they can, if they choose GPL software, but you want to eliminate that freedom and restrict them to software that fits the business model of the GPL.
And closed source programs can contain anything inside and be unfit for consumption.
Can, but spoiled food is by definition unfit for consumption.
This is just a fallacy. You are not giving users any more choice by giving them restrictions. It is an oxymoron.
No, it is proof that the system you want is not what users want so you resort to suggesting we force them down that path, making GPL software the only choice for users.
I can't sell spoiled food even though people can choose not to buy it. I can't even give it away.
Failed analogy, spoiled food is by definition not fit for consumption.
Making developers show exactly what their piece of software does within the user machine, by releasing the source, is just common sense.
No, developers can do that, and if it's such a good thing then users will choose it, but because they aren't choosing it you want to force users to choose that option.
If you think it's irrelevant then don't bother discussing it. The fact is increasing the freedom of the developer can decrease the freedom of the user if the developer chooses to exercise that freedom, increasing the freedom of the user decreases the freedom of the developer. Ultimately the user can choose whether the product or service of the developer suits them and the developer can choose what freedoms to grant the user. Neither party is or should be forced into doing anything.
And it's often stated on there that Microsoft and Apple 'stole' the idea of the GUI and mouse from Xerox, apparently if you're a corporation you can 'steal' ideas.
By allowing a restrictive license to exist you always give options to developer at the cost of taking choices from the user, even if some choices as "not using the software" still remain.
Yes, because the developer is the one providing the product or service, that product or service will not necessarily fit the needs of the user and does not need to.
ok well what is your definition of copyleft?
Yes, of course the BSD license is copyleft
No it isn't, copyleft specifies that derived works may be produced so long as they are released under a compatible copyleft scheme, BSD does not require this.